This attack is led, at least in part, by authors and literary agents who have benefited or hope to benefit from the old Gatekeeper publishing companies, which severely limit the public's access to politically incorrect writers and their books. They are protesting certain supposed tactics employed by Amazon:

"...Sons of Wichita by Daniel Schulman, a writer for Mother Jones magazine, came out in May. Amazon initially discounted the book, a well-received biography of the conservative Koch brothers, by 10 percent, according to a price-tracking service. Now it does not discount it at all. It takes as long as three weeks to ship.

"The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea by Representative Paul Ryan has no such constraints, an unusual position these days for a new Hachette book.

"Amazon refused to take advance orders for The Way Forward, as it does with all new Hachette titles. But once the book was on sale, it was consistently discounted by about 25 percent. There is no shipping delay. Not surprisingly, it has a much higher sales ranking on Amazon than Sons of Wichita.

"An Amazon spokesman declined to explain why The Way Forward was getting special treatment...

“We’re talking about censorship: deliberately making a book hard or impossible to get, ‘disappearing’ an author,” Ms. Le Guin wrote in an email. “Governments use censorship for moral and political ends, justifiable or not. Amazon is using censorship to gain total market control so they can dictate to publishers what they can publish, to authors what they can write, to readers what they can buy. This is more than unjustifiable, it is intolerable.” —Ursula K. LeGuin

(End quote from the Times)

LeGuin must be joking. Thousands of authors of worthy but politically incorrect books are refused publication by the major publishing houses which she is defending in their battle with Amazon.

Many of these politically incorrect books are denied advertising in publications such as the New York Review of Books (NYRB). When this writer was denied an ad for his book by the NYRB, they stated that the Bill of Rights only kept the government from practicing censorship, and they were simply exercising their right as a private business to refuse the advertisement for my work.

With regard to politically incorrect books stigmatized as “extremist,” the New York media and their allies and toadies are shameless in their militant commitment to enforcing a gatekeeper function for the sake of protecting their cherished dogmas. But when it looks as though Amazon is allegedly using some of their own tactics they cry foul. It’s pure hypocrisy.

Amazon has been a libertarian boon to those of us who craft books damned by the gatekeepers. At the very least, Amazon sells hundreds of revisionist and other history books of merit which the corrupt old publishing houses refuse to sell, because these books undermine Establishment propaganda. This fact is almost never mentioned in the concerted campaign to portray Amazon as the enemy of authors.

Andrew Wylie, a top literary agent, wrote the following hysterical outburst in the Times: "It's very clear to me, and to those I represent, that what Amazon is doing is very detrimental to the publishing industry and the interests of authors," the agent said. "If Amazon is not stopped, we are facing the end of literary culture in America."

What Mr. Wylie is so arrogantly referring to as "the end of literary culture” is literary culture as defined by him and his elitist cohorts.

The Republic of Letters is thriving at Amazon, outside the gates of the New York publishing mafia. This is the real grievance behind the anti-Amazon agitation.

Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom, The Great Holocaust Trial, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare and five other books sold by Amazon.com

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Editor’s note: Thomas J. “Stonewall" Jackson, the descendant of white slaves (“indentured servants”) was a genuine American hero. S.C. Gwynne has mostly upheld this assessment in this new biography, Rebel Yell.

As I write these words, news reaches me that the People’s Republic of California has banned the sale or display of the Confederate battle flag in government buildings and facilities. The U.S. flag which was flown by Union Generals Sherman, Sheridan and Custer who, after the Civil War, proceeded to attempt to exterminate the American Indian, continues to fly in California, as it should, since it was hallowed by the valor of American marines, soldiers and sailors. But the hypocrisy in California is breathtaking. The Northern flag of the would-be exterminators of the Indian has no more claim on moral superiority than does the flag of the States Rights' constitutionalists and slaveholders of the South. Either ban both flags, or let them both be. — Michael Hoffman

When she heard that "Stonewall" Jackson had died in Virginia at the midpoint of the Civil War, Martha Ann Haskins wrote in her diary: "I felt as miserable as if I could shut myself in some dark place where I could see no one and there cry, weep, mourn until the war was over." At the time, Haskins was a 16-year-old schoolgirl far away in Tennessee, but her wail of mourning was anything but solitary. Jackson's death occasioned an outpouring of grief throughout the South.

Little wonder, given Jackson's legendary feats on the battlefield. But the man who occasioned such grief was a bundle of contradictions, and some of his most striking qualities were far from flattering. By all accounts he was a very unsocial man, who (according to his staffer Henry Kyd Douglas ) "kept himself always very much apart." At the dinner table, he was "as grave as a signpost" and any staffer who ventured to tell "some little jokes" had to be sure they were "very plain ones for him to see them."

Though Jackson's soldiers were in awe of him, he was a camp-and-battlefield tyrant who arrested and court-martialed subordinates for the slightest disappointment of his expectations. J. William Jones, an army chaplain and biographer of Robert E. Lee, believed that Jackson "probably put more officers under arrest than all others of our generals combined." In August 1862, Jackson put a brigadier-general and five regimental commanders under arrest after discovering that some of their men had purloined, for firewood, a few rails from "a certain worm-fence at a little distance."

But Jackson was also, for all his maniacal furies, a man of unusually intense Christian piety. James Power Smith, a member of Jackson's staff, recalled that he "was that rare man . . . to whom religion was everything." Beverley Tucker Lacy, a Presbyterian minister who served as a chaplain-at-large for Jackson's troops, remembered that Jackson thought "every act of man's life should be a religious act," even "washing, clothing, eating." Religion opened up in Jackson what amounted to a different personality. His prayers were "unlike his common quick & stern emphasis," Lacy recorded. They were "tender, soft, pleading" and full of "confession of unworthiness." He prayed with a self-effacement that carried "the doctrine of predestination to the borders of positive fatalism."

This piety made an odd man odder still, since the profession Jackson had chosen for himself did not, at the time, look favorably on soldiers fiddling with religion. Jackson was a West Point graduate (Class of 1846) and fought with well-noticed valor as a junior officer in the Mexican War. But in the hard-bitten atmosphere of the Army, praying soldiers were often socially shunned and professionally unrewarded. Jackson, though, rose to a generalship: From the time he was given independent command of a minor Confederate field army in July 1861 until his death in May 1863, he managed to execute some of the most extraordinary military operations in American history.

S.C. Gwynne, a longtime editor and writer for Texas Monthly, has an eye for outlier characters. His Empire of the Summer Moon (2010) featured Quanah Parker, the mixed-race chief who was the last of the Comanches to surrender to federal military authority but who also became a successful rancher and the founder of the peyote cult. In Rebel Yell, Mr. Gwynne's easy, loping style wraps itself effortlessly around the particulars of Stonewall Jackson's life, from his back-of-the-mountain upbringing to the outburst of military genius in the Civil War. The result is a narrative vivid with detail and insight but so frankly admiring that few of Jackson's foibles pass without rationalization and few of his failures without excuse.

Jackson was born in 1824, descended from two convicts who had been transported as indentured servants to America in the 1750s. His luckless lawyer-father died in 1826; his mother re-married to a useless low-life, and the boy was farmed out to his father's relatives, rough mill-owners in the western Virginia mountains. "He was not disposed to talk much of his childhood and youth," remembered his future wife, Mary Anna Morrison, "for the reason that it was the saddest period of his life."

The way out of the mountains led through West Point, where a distant kinsman got Jackson an appointment in 1842. He arrived "dressed in homespun, a hat of coarse felt on his head"—and possessing a "terrible earnestness" to succeed. The Mexican War broke out just as Jackson was graduating, and he saw in it nothing but opportunity. "I really envy you men who have been in action," he told another officer, "I want to be in one big battle." He got his wish at Chapultepec on Sept. 13, 1847, when his battery section was caught in the open and Jackson continued to serve the gun even when all but one of his crew had been killed or driven to cover. Chapultepec won him the personal commendation of Army commander Winfield Scott.

The postwar years were less happy for Jackson. He quarreled with his commanding officer at Fort Meade, and when a position at the Virginia Military Institute opened up, he resigned from the Army to become an instructor. He married in 1853, only to have his wife die in childbirth. His habits in diet, health and manner became ever more eccentric, though he managed to re-marry quite happily in 1857.
By now, the entire nation was becoming consumed in the toxic run-up to the Civil War, and Jackson found himself, as a slaveowner, torn between his strong Union feeling and his anxiety that "the Free States" were determined to override the states' rights "which the fair interpretation of the Constitution . . guarantees us." When Virginia joined the Confederacy in April 1861, Jackson first served as a drillmaster and was then soon promoted to colonel. By July, he had been promoted still further, to brigadier general, and had taken charge of a Virginia brigade at the First Battle of Bull Run. His brigade's defiant stand earned him the nickname "Stonewall" ("there stands Jackson like a stone wall," cried one Confederate general), and the nickname became Jackson's banner.But he was only beginning his rise to fame. In 1862, with less than 20,000 ragged rebel infantry, Jackson defeated three separate Union armies in five lightning battles in the Shenandoah Valley and derailed the great Union campaign against Richmond. He struck fiercely, swiftly, as though he had read the minds of his opponents and could anticipate their every bewildered response. Later that summer he bloodied another Union army at Cedar Mountain and helped his admiring commander, Robert E. Lee, trap and smash another Union force at the Second Bull Run. He then went on to capture Harpers Ferry and bag more than 12,000 Union prisoners. He was key to Confederate survival at the battles of Antietam and Fredericksburg and commanded the crushing blow that collapsed the Union Army at Chancellorsville and sent it fleeing for the fords of the Rappahannock River. All of this Mr. Gwynne narrates in fine style. His description of Jackson's actions at Second Bull Run, in August 1862, is probably the finest short account of that battle on offer.

But there are many respects in which Mr. Gwynne remains as baffled by Jackson's oddities as Jackson's contemporaries were. Jackson's health obsessions were legion. He suffered from gastrointestinal pains; he was obsessed with his vision, liver, kidneys and lungs and pursued quack cures with a gullible intensity. Granted that much of this was psychosomatic, Mr. Gwynne nevertheless misses an opportunity to use these obsessions to re-create the environment of anxiety with which all 19th-century Americans surrounded themselves on the subject of disease and death.

Mr. Gwynne appreciates more than many Jackson biographers the extraordinary administrative skills that went with Jackson's dazzling military moves. And he clearly understands that the Union and Confederate armies were collections of part-time amateurs and that only a few officers had any experience at maneuvering large bodies of men. As a result, the Civil War's senior generals were a timid lot. Their West Point educations (when they had one) taught them how to build fortifications, not lead troops in combat. Uncertain of how to maneuver and supply their commands, they preferred hesitation and caution lest their undisciplined cohorts fall apart.

Not Jackson—which raises the compelling question of what made him so different. Nothing in his West Point education distinguished him from his counterparts. Was his rapid rise to prominence in the Civil War merely a matter of good timing, pitting him against unusually incompetent Union generals like Nathaniel Banks ( Shenandoah), John Pope (Second Bull Run) and Joseph Hooker (Chancellorsville)? Or did he possess a special genius that the Civil War had suddenly revealed?

John Esten Cooke, a writer who served in the Confederate army, thought that Jackson's battles would be studied in the future "as the campaigns of Caesar and Napoleon are studied—as the recorded work of a master in the art of war." One modern commentator, A. Wilson Greene, has summed-up Jackson's greatness in six parts: "deception and secrecy; celerity on the march; strong discipline; decisiveness in combat; belief in total victory; and personal bravery and modesty.”

James I. Robertson, author of the magisterial Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend (1997), praises the Shenandoah Valley campaign as "a strategic masterpiece." Jackson himself was simpler: "I always have one single, simple opinion . . . and that is to attack the enemy wherever we find him."

Others, however, have not been so sure that this formula necessarily translated into greatness. After Jackson's death, the London Times suggested that Jackson "was not a great strategist" but did have a knack for solving immediate battlefield problems. Jackson's performance during the Peninsula Campaign in Virginia, in which he marched in the wrong direction and loitered with unusual passivity out of reach of the fighting, has always been a puzzle. Mr. Gwynne, like many of Jackson's partisans, blames it on poorly written orders from Robert E. Lee and a lamentable let-down by local guides.

Robert G. Tanner, who wrote the finest overall study of Jackson's 1862 Shenandoah campaign, Stonewall in the Valley (1976), wondered whether Jackson's victories were worth the toll they exacted from his own men. Peter Cozzens, in Shenandoah 1862 (2008), noticed how, under the whip of Jackson's march-or-die demands, "nearly a third of his force melted away during the campaign." Jackson tended "to feed his army into battle piecemeal" and so caused "unnecessarily high losses and prolonged some contests longer than was warranted."

Mr. Gwynne, however, is much more protective of Jackson. On the whole, he presents Jackson's military prowess as largely the by-product of a well-managed secrecy and deception and an unrelenting aggressiveness. He implies that if Jackson erred by too much aggression—for instance, by his clangorous urging that the Confederate army take the war into the North, burning a path if necessary all the way to Lake Erie—the Confederacy's slim chances gave Jackson little choice but to take great risks.

A more nagging question, not sufficiently explored in Rebel Yell, concerns Jackson's religion and what it might have led him to do had not the skirmishers of the 16th North Carolina mistook him for the enemy after dark at Chancellorsville, Va., in May 1863, and inflicted the three gunshot wounds that helped kill him. (Strictly speaking, he died of pneumonia.) Mr. Gwynne understands that Jackson's eccentricities were, in part, emblems of an inner struggle between his unhallowed ambition and genuine piety. But he is not as discerning about the direction in which those anxieties were tending.

After the South's secession, Jackson was clearly disappointed that the Confederacy had not seized the chance to re-construct an explicitly Christian nation. "I am afraid that our people are looking to the wrong source for help," Jackson complained to his pastor. "If we fail to trust in God & to give him all the glory our cause is ruined."

But apart from a brief allusion to God in the new Confederate constitution, the Confederate government did no more than the U.S. Constitution to legalize the recognition of Christianity. Jackson hoped to find in evangelical Christianity a form of virtue that could govern public order in the Confederacy in the way it governed his private life. "It was his earnest desire," wrote Jackson's chief of staff and personal theologian, Robert Lewis Dabney, that "the people of the Confederate States . . . should recognize the rights of God more distinctly, and that the Christian Church should put forth more saving power in society.”

No wonder, then, that Jackson turned such ferocious energies against the Yankee armies: They threatened the opportunity to install a new Christian order in an independent Confederacy. "I myself see in this war, if the North triumph, a dissolution of the bonds of all society," Jackson wrote in 1862.

Although the conventional wisdom holds that religion made Stonewall Jackson a repressive personality, his Calvinistic Presbyterianism in fact acted permissively on him, allowing him to advocate all-out war on his subordinates as much as on the Yankees. According to Lacy, Jackson's most "often speculated topic was: 'Duty ours, consequences God's.' " Religion made him the domineering soldier he was, not because it forced him to inhumane policies but because it gave a man who was, in private, humane, shy and gentle the permission he needed to pursue them.

It's worth wondering whether, had a bullet cut down Robert E. Lee rather than Thomas Jonathan Jackson at Chancellorsville, Jackson might have succeeded in making the Army of Northern Virginia over into the "converted army" he told Lacy he desired and then using it to march on the centers of power and install a Christian government.

But it was not to be and probably could never have been. Southerners mourned Jackson's death, but in the postwar years the apostles of the Lost Cause found greater ease in making Robert E. Lee—the genteel aristocrat and mild-mannered Episcopalian—into the model Confederate soldier, a public personality far less relentless than that of Thomas Jonathan Jackson.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

In today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, p. D5, the president of Oxford University’s Corpus Christi College, Richard Carwardine, states the following malicious nonsense:

“...the Jews were grievously driven out of England by King Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290, not to be readmitted until the rule of Oliver Cromwell, over 350 years later...”

Why would an eminent Establishment figure like Richard Carwardine support a Right Wing myth?

Why would the former Chief Rabbi of England, Jonathan Sacks, and many dozens of other members of the Establishment elite, also endorse this myth?

Fact: In December, 1656 the Puritan Parliament obstructed Cromwell’s scheme for readmission. Judaics such as Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel and his party subsequently left England, broken-hearted.

Why does the Cryptocracy have a vested interest in concealing the truth that only after Cromwell had died and the Puritan Republic had been dissolved, that it was King Charles II, during the “Restoration" who readmitted the Judaics to England?

"...Some years ago, I took part in a rather fractious discussion with an American Jewish activist. At the end of our discussion, and in some exasperation, my interlocutor asked what could one expect from someone who's country had expelled all it's Jews? He was referring to Edward I's Edict of Expulsion in 1290.

"Now, who but a Jew could hold a grudge for seven hundred years, and it is precisely that same never-ending quest for revenge which impels Jewish machers today to chase frail old men to their graves - and for crimes they probably didn't commit.

"By the way, I'm no mediaeval historian but I'd bet the people of Ye Olde England had as much justification for getting rid of their Jews then as the current people of England have now."

To Paul Eisen

Dear Paul

This is the subject of our currentRevisionist History newsletter no. 74: the debate over the original expulsion was at the center of the Parliamentary consideration, in December, 1655, of Oliver Cromwell's initiative to readmit the Judaics to England.

Right wing myths about Cromwell and the Puritan Republic, popularized principally by Hilaire Belloc and Capt. Archibald Ramsay (the latter in his book The Nameless War), are debunked in issue no. 74.

A substantial machinery of disinformation developed in the 20th century to obscure the struggle against criminal politics and support the British monarchy, by painting the Puritan Republic which overthrew the king, as irretrievably beholden to the Judaic "Money Power," a charge for which the Kings Charles (I and II) were in fact guilty. How this outlandish myth was propagated and came to gain credibility is a study in a defective psychology, historiography and epistemology which remains as virulent as ever on the non-Zionist Right.

"Justification" for the original 13th century expulsion usually turns on economic crimes such as usury. However, William Prynne, in his important 1656 book The Short Demurrer, states that they were expelled primarily for blasphemy and other insults to Christ and His Mother, back when the defense of Jesus and Mary was incumbent on those who claimed the mantle of a Christian, unlike, say for instance, "Christian" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who imagines that latter-day blasphemers in the Israeli state are "the best friends of Christians," as he dared to tell a conference of Arab Christians, some of whom survived Israeli carpet bombing of the Christian areas of Lebanon.

Back to English history: the old chestnut about the barons benefiting economically from the expulsion of Judaics in the Middle Ages is a canard: they gladly paid a tax to finance the expulsion. No wonder the "usual suspects" have managed to defame that light-filled epoch as, "the Dark Ages."

Authentic, i.e. revisionist history, is one of the most marvelous adventures the human spirit can undertake!

Sincerely,

Michael Hoffman

Losers Inc.

On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:54, Ian M. wrote:

Apropos of the latest Hoffman Wire dispatch e-mailed earlier today ("Expulsion of the 'Jews' from England"), here's an article from Counter-Currents (pagan/identitarian site) which again reiterates the Cromwell canard - this article ran today:

It is important therefore to consider the phenomenon of Puritanism which provoked the English Civil War during which America was settled and to notice also the close connection between Christian Puritanism and Judaism. We may recall in this context that the Jews, who had been officially expelled from England in 1290 by Edward I, were allowed by the Puritan dictator Cromwell in the 1650s to return from Holland, where they had been conducting a flourishing financial business, and throughout the Commonwealth the Jews were held in high esteem by the Puritans.

The similarity of the capitalist ethics developed by the Puritans and that of the Jews was noted already in 1911 by the German sociologist Werner Sombart in his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben. Sombart maintained that the “Protestant” ethic that Max Weber had focused on in his 1905 work, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, was indeed to be identified specifically as a Puritan one that should be equated to Judaism. For, as Sombart explained, “In both will be found . . . the close relationship between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the rationalization of life.”

It's fascinating that the Cryptocracy has sought to conceal the Stuart dynasty's deep ties to Judaic finance and control, and that the Cryptocracy uses Right wing and neo-Nazi networks to assist in this concealment. The goal is to defame the early Puritan revolutionaries, who are not to be confused with their degenerate modern heirs among the "Orangemen" types who hold that Catholics are far more evil than Talmudists, while offering little or no animadversions concerning the latter.

Without a significant readership for our deconstruction of these myths however, they will continue to misdirect Conservatives into demoralizing dead ends - which is the whole point behind these fables - to discourage our people by selling them lies so they will eventually drop out and become "survivalist" hoarders, instead of teachers, activists and campaigners.

One can't campaign on rotten information, any more than one can operate a superb diesel motor car with gasoline. A diesel must have the precise fuel made for it. Campaigners for truth must have factual information in order tosucceed and prevail. This is a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who cling to their confirmation bias, while imagining themselves infinitely superior to the dumbed-down "sheeple." Unconscious agents of the Cryptocracy are worse than sheeple.

We have made the revisionist truth available in our latest newsletter (which is actually, for this issue, a 20 page magazine), for those who care enough to pay a few bucks to educate themselves and their children. How many do care enough? Yet they blame everyone and everything for the plight of our nation, except their own voluntary surrender to pessimism and parsimony.

Were the English Puritans who overthrew King Charles I agents of the Judaic Money Power?

Did Oliver Crowell readmit the Judaics to England?

Many non-Zionist Right-wingers believe the answer to all three questions is yes.

It is our hope that uncovering these Big Lies will serve to illustrate a defective epistemology, what is known in cognitive psychology as confirmation bias. This is the act of seeking only those details and viewpoints which confirm the biases we hold dear, and about which we have formed a pre-judgment, independent of the documentary record.Right wing myths have disoriented our minds, nearly destroyed our spirits and imparted so much confusion that many of our people, in spite of good intentions, have been rendered almost totally ineffective in this Great Battle.

Throughout history deep-cover forces of the Cryptocracy have co-opted personnel and organizations we imagine are on the side of the good and the true. The more our people burn out from suckering in for these counterfeits, the more they fail to show up for battle. In this issue we investigate one particular set of these counterfeits, the better to hone our powers of discernment. By offering training in the detection of counterfeit history and the extent to which we have been snookered by respectable, highly esteemed authors such as Hilaire Belloc, and Capt. Archibald Ramsay in his book The Nameless War, we hope to inoculate our readers against the legion of Right wing dupes and one-track minds churning out misleading and erroneous data which engenders confusion and tends to discredit us.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Today is the 13th anniversary of the US government’s attack on its own people at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City.

In November we will observe the 51st anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the CIA, in cooperation with the US Secret Service that was sworn to protect him.

The U.S. was never the same after the killing of our President, the people were transformed, as was the nation. The same is rightly said of Sept. 11, 2001. It was a landmark in the systemic psychological warfare inflicted on the American people.

What is the message of successful conspiracies like these? First, that those responsible for investigating the criminal conspiracy: the top cops, judges, lawmakers and journalists, neglected to do so. They chose their careers and creature comforts over bringing traitors to justice.

This type of sybaritic treachery recently came to light in England, in the Rotherham Borough Council report which estimated that from 1997 to 2013, Pakistani and other Muslim immigrants systematically raped and sexually trafficked some 1,400 English girls as young as twelve years-of-age, while the British police deliberately looked away, lest they be accused of bias, since all the perpetrators were Muslim. Imagine these well-paid, over-fed police officials in their cozy, well-appointed homes snuggled in the bosom of their families — knowing that the children of poor and middle class English parents were, day after day, sex slaves of Pakistani men — and doing exactly nothing about it. The moral rot is almost inconceivable. Yet, it’s the same perversion of mind and soul exhibited by those who should have investigated and prosecuted the killers of Kennedy, and those who pre-positioned demolition explosives inside the Twin Towers and WTC building seven.

Instead, those who publicize this treason are being classed as a type of conspiracy theory terrorist by Establishment elitists such as Cass Sunstein, for whom “Holocaust denial,” “climate change denial” and doubts about the official accounts of who killed Kennedy and who attacked our nation on Sept. 11, are all part of a seamless fabric of intellectual terrorism. This sort of phantasmagoria should be laughed out of contention, but it is not.

The second message imparted by the Cryptocracy’s immunity in killing the President and bombing the Pentagon and the WTC, is invincibility. In the movie “Patton,” General George Patton (himself a probable victim of an assassination arranged to look like an accident), as played by George C. Scott, states that Americans traditionally love a winner and can’t abide a loser.

Those responsible for the murderous coup that made Lyndon Johnson President of the United States, and which on Sept. 11 gave George W. Bush the pretext he needed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, destabilize the Middle East, and bring his creature Al Qaeda to prominence, are winners in the sense of their power on earth and apparent invincibility. Since they are the winners, who are the losers? The American people, certainly, a fact which signals that Patton’s formula applies to us -- we can’t abide ourselves. Self-loathing is psychologically destructive and defeating, and leads to further degeneration and perversion. What are the signs?

One indicator would be “Childhood’s End,” in the words of the prophet of the 2001 gateway, Arthur C. Clarke. The Internet invasion of childhood now underway is perhaps the most tragic manifestation. Children as young as 9 and 10 are addicted to iPods, iPads, electronic tablets and personal computers. They are hooked, via wireless modem, to an online world where childhood ends. They exist in a catatonic state, tethered to a digital hive. This excessive electronic stimulation bordering on hypnosis, leads to an atrophied attention span in which focusing on reading even one chapter from a serious book is a tall order, while taking part in a family dinner and participating in an extended conversation becomes a tedious bore. And this zombie state is nothing compared to what is coming in the next year or two as the price of full immersion, Virtual-Reality (VR) goggles becomes more affordable.

After VR becomes ubiquitous, parents will nostalgically dream of the “good old days” when their kids were only half-tethered to hallucination. With the coming of VR the immersion, in hallucination will become total, and the ability to distinguish between the real and the fake will be sacrificed on the altar of technological verisimilitude.

At the opposite end of the spectrum of this psychological crippling, are the survivalists whose reaction to the cowardice and treachery which produced the world we inhabit is to give up, declare that “it’s no use,” and head for the hills to save their own skins. Many who do this claim to be Christians, followers of the God-man who said, “For whosoever shall save his life shall lose it.”

Survivalists imagine that they are the most virile of all Americans, taking “responsibility” in the face of the coming, “inevitable collapse.” Little do they know that this frame of mind has been seeded by the Cryptocracy just as surely as the other psychologically crippling scenarios we have been examining. Survivalists in days of yore would have been regarded as cowards. In Anglo-Saxon England these survivalist types would have spotted the seemingly unbeatable Viking hordes landing on shore and would flee, leaving protection of the nation to others. Those who will only fight when the odds are in their favor possess the mentality of brigands and pirates. Yet they call themselves family values conservatives as they abandon the field to God’s enemies.

Strange, is it not, that immigrants to the US from China and Mexico, facing overwhelming odds against them, find a way, in many cases, to overcome them? They have the health and the nerve, the hope and the optimism, to take advantage of what they view as a land brimming with opportunity. Often times with not much more than the clothes on their back, they move up the ladder of success, one step at a time. They are overcomers, even though, in the case of most Asian immigrants, they are not Christians. Meanwhile those who abuse the name of Christ by claiming to be His followers, overcome nothing, having decayed into faithless, hopeless people hiding in holes, awaiting the end.

Like the CIA’s JFK assassination, the US government-orchestrated 9/11 terror attacks are aimed at the hearts and minds of the American people, as part of an occult process of paralyzing us psychologically.

Oh ye of little faith! Almighty God permits no challenge to us without also bestowing sufficient grace so that we may overcome the challenge, if we are up to our destiny as sons and daughters of the Most High.

Hoffman’s next book is The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, due to be published at the end of the year. His latest Revisionist History newsletter no. 74, “Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life” will be mailed to subscribers Sept. 19. Subscribe here.